All conversation welcome; however, I will ignoreany User who uses Outland in the plural, and don't expect sympathy if you're complaining about retcons or lore inconsistencies. Also, if you use a custom signature ruthlessly stolen from Kirkurn's, I'm likely to be less polite; that's the price of unoriginality. Also be advised that I may turn nasty if you're someone who thinks Illidan is just the greatest- sorry, he's not. --Ragestorm(talk · contr)

Contents

What do you mean if? You don't make links in preparation for something that might be made, you link things that are there already or you know are about to be created in the near future. (emphasis added)

And those links were totally uncalled for anyway- For one thing, they're almost certainly referring to the same polity- for another, there's so little information about the aqir anyway that the thing would probably have been redirected. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first part, I must respectfully disagree, both in practice and as policy.

In practice, I've been editing quest pages this last month and more, unstubbing, creating item pages (reward, quest, incidental), and general cleaning up. Links were created some good number of months ago, but in many cases the item pages were never followed up on. In other cases, stub item pages were created that had only marginal value. And in some, names were simply misspelled, leaving redlinks laying around. (... which I then try to correct only to later discover the fact of the misspelling... :( ). So red links are indeed being made where there is the expectation that an article will be created some time in the future. But not followed up on.

As policy, though... My opinion is that red links indicate articles that the editor believes should exist. I feel that creating them is acceptable, though frowned upon as a general rule. A red link has the same offensive characteristics to me as a contentless stub does, except that the red link indicates overtly that remediation is called for. My usual procedure, though, is to create the target first then create the link. If I a) am pressed for time, b) don't know anything useful about the topic, or c) just don't care about the page (but recognize that the page should exist) I'll create the link and move on.

I suspect that the second paragraph was the one important to you at the time. Coupled with a history of Rolandius being troublesome, I suspect your temper was unduly frayed. My recommendation (from my comfy armchair, mind), would have been to create those redirects, possibly with the addition of a note on the use of the alternate name. In any case, that diverges from my thoughts on the utility of red links.

Thoughts? Is there an officially expressed policy? I could not find one on a brief search for "red links". --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First off, you are correct in assuming my main point was about Rolandius's specific actions that time- that is, A) making redlinks with the intention of leaving them there, 2) making redlinks for different polities when they were in fact, the same thing (he was under the impression that Azj Aqir, "Azj Aqir empire" and "Azj Aqir kingdom" were three distinct polities- or at least subjects- meriting their own articles) and Zed) having been told about this exact issue before and repeating it. I suppose you're right about making them redirect back to Azj Aqir...

I'll admit, though, I'm pretty sure that there's nothing in policy about redlinks. I'm not planning on running through the server and purging all redlinks or anything like that, nor am I plotting to ban any user who makes use of them. Generally, I agree with your points overall, but my problem is that, if redlinks are being used to indicate what users think should merit articles, that's problematic. Most of the redlinks I've seen across the board are either simply redirects or something that doesn't merit its own article. --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We encounter different portions of the wiki. I am guessing my experience would be more in line with yours if I were to actually look through Wanted Pages. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering why "Alliance Forces" and "Horde Forces" do not have articles for themselves, yet "Illidan's forces" and "Kael'thas' forces" do? I would think it would be the other way around where the two organizations with capitalized words would get articles and not the two "organizations" that have lower-case words as part of their name. Rolandius(talk - contr) 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius the problem is that there is no source for the term "Alliance Forces" or "Horde Forces". Or do you have them? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In WoW, "Alliance Forces" and "Horde Forces" is shown in the reputation pane. They even have their own little icon. Rolandius(talk - contr) 03:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Alliance Forces is made up of the Alliance BG factions and Horde Forces is made up of the Horde BG factions. Alliance Forces is then a group under the Alliance and Horde Forces is then a group under the Horde. Rolandius(talk - contr) 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I have never paid attention to that. Maybe they don't have their own article because no one has ever taken the time to make it? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. I think they just redirect to the Alliance and Horde articles. Rolandius(talk - contr) 03:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If I find some organizations in Warcraft III, should I cite them as Warcraft III or do I have to know the level(s) also? I wrote down some groups as I went through, but then forgot to put down what level they were in. Is there a way to find the names of groups within levels without having to go through the whole game and/or level again? Rolandius(talk - contr) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, I have played WC3 so many times that I can almost tell you without playing. If you can just list them and I'll add the reference :) Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have only played Reign of Chaos and half of The Frozen Throne so there may be some I am missing. Also, some of these might be seen by others as not being organizations, but they looked like it to me in the levels as they were capitalized, the name showed up if you hovered your mouse over them, etc. "Villagers", "Blackrock Warriors", "Blackrock Warlocks", "Local Populace", "Lordaeron Navy", "Ogre Legion" (Name found in the description of any ogres you recruit from Mercenary Camps.), "Dragon Camps", (For some reason, they put this name on a group of units), "Dwarven Expedition", "Elven Villagers", "Elven Protectors", "Elven Defenders", "Cenarius" (The name showed up on a group he commanded, not just him.), "Lordaeron Brigade", "Ancient Dead", "Captive Orcs" (Pretty much just captured orcs.), "ShadowTooth Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Shadowtooth clan.), "Felwood Furbolgs", "Orcish Horde" (On WoWWiki, it redirects to History of the Horde.), "Ancient Guardian" (The name showed up on a group of them, not just one.), "Corrupted Ancients", "Prisoners" (Pretty much just prisoners.), "Sleepers" (Pretty much just jailors who were asleep unless woken.), "Demon Elite Guard", "Barkskin Furbolgs", "Ancestral Spirits", "Wild Mur'guls", "Ferocious Beasts", "Night Elf Villagers", "Naga Strikeforce", "Illidan's Escort", "Stormreaver Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Stormreaver clan.), "Blackrock Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Blackrock clan.), "Twilight's Hammer Clan" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Twilight's Hammer clan), "Tomb Guardians", "Kiljaeden's Seekers" (Might have been spelled Kil'jaeden's Seekers.), "Harbor Defenses", "Naga" (I guess they were also an organization?), "Night Elf Fleet", "Malfurion's Force", "Plagued Villagers", "Acolytes In Hiding" (The units of this group were spelled Acolytes in Hiding.), "Regional Defenders", "Silvermoon Guard", "Sorcerers' League" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Sorcerer's League.), "Mages' Guild" (On WoWWiki, it is spelled Mage's Guild.), "Stranded Orcs" (Pretty much just orcs that were stranded.), "Sunwell Guardians", "Town Guard", and "Undead Caravan". Rolandius(talk - contr) 05:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ookay. Winding the clock back to the original question, "Illidan's forces" is its own article because it is the conjectural title of a group that was formerly presumed to be called the Illidari. The others probably deserve their own articles, I'm not sure, but they have nothing to do with Illidan's forces or Kael's forces.

Three notes about the WC3 factions/groups: A) I don't think you need them, but the levels are good to have for references, so thanks very much, Benito; 2) If you think you're going to make one article for each of those "organization", you're mistaken, and Zed) a significant portion of these are either descriptive names for NPC groups and not meant to be taken as literal lore names or are factions that are already present- capitalization does not an organization make. --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How do I know which terms are article worthy? For instance, the other two or three groups named "Blackrock something" that were with the "Blackrock Warriors" and "Blackrock Warlocks" have articles. The other groups who were with "Illidan's Escort" and "Naga Strikeforce" have articles. Rolandius(talk - contr) 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Glancing at the list above, I'd say that very few of them deserve their own articles. It's obvious that "Elven villagers" are not an organization, unless it's the quel'dorei equivalent of a homeowners association. Simiarly, how in the hells could "Naga" be the name of an organization? If anything, these could go on a "List of NPC factions/organizations/teams in Warcraft III", Subdividing between RoC and TFT, and dividing by campaign. --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 12:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that teams like villagers shouldn't have articles, the information should be incorporated to the article villager, who talks about the unit. The same for Naga, Cenarius, etc. But some, like Elven Defenders or Naga Strikeforce should. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, they spelled it "Elven Villagers" so I thought it was similiar to "Illidan's Naga". This brings me to the "Naga" group you asked me about. Just like "Illidan's Naga" was a group when you hovered your mouse over certain units, "Naga" would show up if you hovered your mouse over some neutral naga units. I am just wondering how you seperate something like "Elven Villagers" and "Illidan's Naga" as an organization or not an organization when they both are just descriptions of a group of units; villagers who are high elves and naga who are following Illidan. Rolandius(talk - contr) 11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering, how do we tell which NPCs/Mobs are under DNP? I am told that NPCs/Mobs that are not important or were removed from the game should not be on WoWWiki. The thing is that it does not say anything under WW:DNP about NPCs/Mobs and WW:NPOV seems to say that users could make articles for any NPCs/Mobs. In essence, if it was/is an NPC or Mob then a user should be able to make an article because saying a certain NPC/Mob is not important is not part of a neutral point of view. Someone could easily say a certain Horde or Alliance character is not important. Did I miss a policy mentioning which NPCs/Mobs should not be put on WoWWiki? Rolandius(talk - contr) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NPCs and Mobs are under DNP if information about them is solely obtained through datamining (Such as mobs that have been added to the game files in the PTR, but not seen on the live PTR). If this is about Talk:Wisp (The not important) or User_talk:Rolandius#RE:_Strand_of_the_Ancients_Battlemaster (The removed from the game), you are confusing DNP, which is not being allowed to add, with just not a good idea to add. It is all about relevance and notability. You can only tell about that with common sense. Ask your mentor if you really think a page should be made that other users disagree with.--SWM2448 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That is what I was saying. DNP doesn't say anything about NPC and Mob articles or info not being allowed on WoWWiki just because some people think it is "not a good idea". "Strand of the Ancients Battlemaster" was a red link, created by an admin by the way, which i tried making into an article because 1) it was a red link 2) it was in WoW at one time and we have a "Removed from game" category for those articles. "Wisp" is in WoW right now so that is simple enough to see why it should be on here. I am not going to spend hours arguing trying to get two characters that should already be on here if some people for some reason think it is "not a good idea". I think it just lessens from the idea that WoWWiki has a NPOV that is all. It is just one more decision that makes you wonder what some people are thinking and why we have rules if they are not followed. Rolandius(talk - contr) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then make the pointless article if its so important to you. Geez, you turn everything into an argument. User:Coobra/Sig4 05:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not like I enjoy arguing. It is just that some decisions make no sense at all, to me or what the rules say in WoWWiki, and so I end up asking how in the world are people getting to these decisions. Rolandius(talk - contr) 05:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is "common sense" to not fix a red-linked NPC and to know that the Wisp NPC is not important? Allrighty then. Rolandius(talk - contr) 07:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DNP is not allowed to post. Most of what you're talking about is do not need to post. Adding the model of an NPC that was acquired through hacking and has not yet been released in-game is prohibited under the DNP policy. Drawing an example from your record, separate articles for every sort of defensive tower in Warcraft III is not needed, but is not prohibited by DNP. I've little experience with the mob articles to tell you how to proceed. Also, NPoV refers to the tone of articles, and only factors in to creating new articles if someone is preventing the new article for a biased reason, like the don't like the character or subject matter on a personal reason. Not adding new articles because you don't think they're needed is not a violation of the NPoV policy- an example of a true violation would be preventing the creation of an article about Velen because you blame him for the destruction of the orcs. --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:A'noob has broken WW:3RR on Kvaldir. He keeps reverting my edits insisting that the Kvaldir are some organization when it says right in the article that they are a subrace of vrykul. It says under the "Clan section" that the Skadir are a clan, not the Kvaldir, yet he keeps calling it the Kvaldir clan. Rolandius(talk - contr) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why it needs two infoboxes, but the infobox is referring in both cases to the Kvaldir, which might be a clan as well as being a race, I don't know, someone with more experience with Vrykul lore needs to comment. Perhaps the factionbox should not be labeled "clan". --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe they are a clan, although there exists no proof that they aren't. They could simply be named <Race> <Type>, like how blizzard did Gorlocs in the Borean Tundra... that doesn't mean those gorlocs are a tribe named Gorloc. However, since Rolandius believes so much in the Skadir being a clan I'm not opposed to the main group being a clan as well. Who's to say the Skadir didn't break off from the Kvaldir. User:Coobra/Sig4 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"However, since Rolandius believes so much in the Skadir being a clan I'm not opposed to the main group being a clan as well." It has nothing to do with what I think. It has to do with the fact that Skadir clan is an article on WoWWiki. So it is more like "WoWWiki believes so much in the Skadir being a clan", not me. I was just trying to have the two articles actually make sense when a user looks at them both. Why would we have an article named "Skadir clan" if we aren't going to look at them as a clan? Rolandius(talk - contr) 04:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I am the one who wrote most of that part in the Thrall article and I didn't transalte it from anywhere, I just wrote it after seeing the trailer. Excuse me if it was badly written, my native language is spanish and sometimes I can't write in english as good as an american do. But it's good to see that it was corrected by you, thanks. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend say things like that in edit summaries. I never follow through. Until now, I hadn't noticed any problems from you, so good job. --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, it says "Discussion" and they're on lore pages. Plus I've seen quite a lot of theoretical posts. Didn't know it was against the rules. I just figured some WoW geeks, here on a WoW fan site that has most or all the lore known, would enjoy just conversing about it. What's so bad about just discussing things on a discussion page? I apologize if it offends you that I've done it. Mykael Mourningsun (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Though there are a large number of lore posts, they usually start out as discussions of changes to the article that get away from the point, or ones that nobody notices. We don't enforce this policy all that strictly, but when I see someone starting discussions that are clearly theoretical, I generally try to explain things directly. Though we're all WoW fanatics here, and we all enjoy a good lore argument (sorry, discussion), WoWWiki is an encyclopedia: facts first, compromises second, theorizing third, and fun discussions last. We've got NPOV, image policies and the like mixed in. This isn't a bannable offense, by any means, unless you ignore repeated warnings (the warning has not been repeated once), so just stick to the forums or usertalk (if you're talking to someone specific) in future.--Ragestorm(talk · contr) 13:25, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

The Bookkeepers are largely inactive as an organization. I am working on a revamp or removal of the community teams, and was wondering what your thoughts were.--SWM2448 01:02, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Though I keep coming up with ways to revamp the Bookkeepers, I'm coming around to the view of thought that the Community team system no longer mesh with the way WoWWiki functions today. I will take a look at the forum. --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 15:10, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend for it to cause that, just posted it how I saw it (and boy, have I seen it, heh). But...whoever that is....ooh! If I didn't value being able to edit here so much, I'd give that little twerp a piece of my mind. Redundant, indeed! --Joshmaul (talk) 11:02, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Eh, don't worry about it. I think it could do to be better cited, but I trust your word (plus, there's the fact that everyone else agreed with it!). --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 14:05, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

And there's the horrible problem that was caused by people people believing that a blood elf is a different race, and what i consider hardly a sub-race of High elf you can check it in the template discussion but anyway ill list a temporary solution cratering with these complaints below--Ashbear160 (talk) 01:16, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out, why are frost and iron dwarves listed under earthen? aren't they proper dwarf species? so it should be Dwarf (Earthen[Troggs]. Northrend?[Iron. Frost]. Ironforge[Bronzebeard.Dark Iron{Skardyn}. Wildhammer])? --1201 (talk) 19:44, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

The evolution of the Frostborn isn't clear, if I recall, and Loken made the Iron dwarves from scratch. It might be more likely that they're more properly Earthen subtypes (part of the problem is that the precise difference between dwarves and Earthen is unclear). Give me a source and we'll fix it.--Ragestorm(talk · contr) 21:08, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

It was OK, I guess, I don't really think people would really be struck by it as something that might happen, whereas some people apparently really believe there was a setting with their video cards wrong with regard to the images. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!•C62,301 contributions and counting) 22:05, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I knew many would not get it. I blame Coobra.--SWM2448 22:20, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well... I would have been a bit taken aback, that's for sure. Don't blame Coobra- he's the nice sort of snake, you know, the one we sick on vandals and/or annoying canaries!

Re the upside downs, mine started out normal and then flipped. Navigating ToCs took a bit of practice, though, and the new color scheme was jarring. Better than last year, all in all. --Ragestorm(talk · contr) 23:06, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

It is better because there was no joke last year.--SWM2448 23:20, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Valindras used my factions from my expansion idea and put them in his/herexpansion idea. I am a little annoyed because of it, but I don't remember the policy of people using others ideas for the expansion speculation....Can you tell me what it is?--Sairez (talk).

All contributions to the wiki are released under CC-BY-SA. Which means anyone can use your contributions on this wiki... --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!•C62,301 contributions and counting) 03:59, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks for letting me know Pcj...I was just shocked to see something I created on someone else's page. --Sairez (talk)

I was my impression that content was free to use, but people had to give some kind of credit. I had better read through the legal stuff again.--SWM2448 20:12, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Based on the page Eirik linked, I feel my previous thoughts were correct. I found an interesting thing while lurking on Scrolls of Lore. Notice anything familiar about anything in this article? Warthok did.--SWM2448 23:23, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

What should I be looking at specifically?--Ragestorm(talk · contr) 18:11, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, my gf and I have just started reading through all the warcraft novels using your recommended read order, and so far it's been absolutely fantastic. One issue we've come across though is the story in Warcraft 3. Neither of us are into RTS style games really, but we don't want to miss out on the story progression.

I've tried going through the articles on this site, but many of the WC3 articles deal heavily with in-game stuff. Each chapter of each campaign has a little summary, but I've found them tedious to go though for just storyline.

Is there any source you could point us towards so we could comprehensively read through the events of the game, at least enough so we don't feel lost in the next set of books?